I Can't Love Linux


Recommended Posts

msg43

I learned a whole lot in IRC

I personally hate Fedora if I had to use it I would back in windows.

I tried linux a few times when I was younger mabye when I was 12..

I tried again around february and I've gotten very good with it. Within that last months I have learned a lot and use windows only for games and few apps I need for school

Link to post
Share on other sites
ultimate99

Well, it all depends on your attitude towards linux. For me, i never thought i would ever touch linux. but for some reason read about it and starting trying out a distro in vm. it was totally difficult and wierd in the beginning; but get used to it. i didnt master linux and i think i never will. however, when i got better (i think) at linux i did a dual boot. hopefully, in the near future i might be using linux only.

Link to post
Share on other sites
llbbl

I think when I am done with my current MMPORPG i'm gonna give up and goto Linux 100% because gaming is only reason i'm using windows. All future games after that will have to be console based i guess =/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Treefrog
I think when I am done with my current MMPORPG i'm gonna give up and goto Linux 100% because gaming is only reason i'm using windows.  All future games after that will have to be console based i guess =/

586065105[/snapback]

I'm hoping that was a joke, but if it wasn't you might want to take a look at our list of games compiled by us gamers who use Linux anyways hehe ;).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bushrat

I work on linux all the time, as a server administrator...

but i always use windoze as a desktop :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cube

i feel the same way, shirt with neck too tight is a pretty good feeling of what its like with linux as a desktop. I tried a couple times but everything is like more work than what you would do in windowsxp. its a hassle and timeconsuming

Link to post
Share on other sites
Darkinspiration

Not every distro is an hassle. I installed suse 9.3 and everything worked out of the box.... But unfortunatly the same could not be said on 9.2. or my trial of fedora core 3.

Linux is in constant evolution. Sometime it work some other time it dosent. It really true on popular package base distro like fedora and suse.

That's with source exist.... but then it's really an hassle and it's also a good way of creating wierd dependancy problem.

Linux is about choice. One distro cannot fit all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barney T.

IMHO, many of the posts in this thread are total misconceptions. "Need to compile everything in Ubuntu" is a prime example. That is absolutely incorrect. Ubuntu's CD comes with tons of apps already compliled and ready to go when you insert the CD. Most of the current "noob-friendly" Linux distros today are so easy to install and run, it is just absurd to think otherwise. Also to say that some old distro (like Readhat 7.1.... sorry MarkJensen) is terrible and has "kept me away from Linux" is like saying that "I tried Windows Me and I will never go back to Windows".

Linux takes time to learn, like Windows when you first try it. But it requires only a little effort and understanding to get it tweaked to the users liking............ These are really good operating systems and one only needs to do some research to find the distro that is right for you. And if it happens to be Windows, then "more power to you"... :yes:

Barney

Link to post
Share on other sites
msg43
Not every distro is an hassle. I installed suse 9.3 and everything worked out of the box.... But unfortunatly the same could not be said on 9.2. or my trial  of fedora core 3.

Linux is in constant evolution. Sometime it work some other time it dosent. It really true on popular package base distro like fedora and suse.

That's with source exist.... but then it's really an hassle and it's also a good way of creating wierd dependancy problem.

Linux is about choice. One distro cannot fit all.

586066871[/snapback]

I'd pretty much have to disagree

You've got Archlinux, Gentoo, and LFS and you can basically do whatever you want. You can install kde, gnome, xfce, make a server. Gentoo is source. ARch is packages and LFS is completely customized.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barney T.

Of course, my other thought is that if a newbie to Linux mistakenly picks up a less than easy (for a newbie) distro like Slackware, Gentoo, or Debian........... meaning that it is highly dependent on a non-gui interface and command line input, there is a real chance that a positive outcome will not occur............. for the newbie.

It takes time to find the one distro that has all of the needs and ease that the person is looking for......

Barney

Link to post
Share on other sites
sanctified

Despite what some Linux zealots want to think no Linux distro its still ready to compare with Windows in its main market: The Desktop one.

Yes, Linspire exists. But its software and update managements its ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barney T.
Despite what some Linux zealots want to think no Linux distro its still ready to compare with Windows in its main market: The Desktop one.

Yes, Linspire exists. But its software and update managements its ridiculous.

586068654[/snapback]

Whoa... that sounds like trolling to me............. :no:

Barney

Link to post
Share on other sites
seta-san

hi. welcome to neowin.

Whoa... that sounds like trolling to me.............  :no:

Barney

586068690[/snapback]

Link to post
Share on other sites
JustVince

This is why Windows is #1 people are used to it and don't really like change. I have tried a few linux distros and just don't feel as at home as I do with Windows. I would like to be as comfortable with Linux as I am with Windows so I'm sure I will try Linux again some time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sanctified
Whoa... that sounds like trolling to me.............  :no:

Barney

586068690[/snapback]

How so? That its my opinion. Im not attacking anyone. For me no Linux distro its ready for the desktop market. What do you want from me? To lie?

If an opinion that differs froms yours its trolling for you then Im sorry to say it but you need to learn to handle the world outside.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BajiRav

I haven't tried Linux in recent times...but one of the major problems is the large number of apps that ship on a Linux distro CD.:x Sure that is a major point put forward...you get tonnes of apps...but if anybody does a default install he ends up with lots of submenus filled with weird names in errr..."start menu" that don't make any sense. I am staying away from Linux because as of now IMO Windows is far better to use + Linux needs some serious work to evolve a good UI.

(I must admit I haven't used any Linux distro in recent times...only a Ubuntu Live CD but the screenshots keep me from trying anything) :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Miuku.
How so? That its my opinion. Im not attacking anyone. For me no Linux distro its ready for the desktop market. What do you want from me? To lie?

586068769[/snapback]

Define "desktop market". Users at home? Corporate users like me?

For corporate users Linux has been ready for years as the amount of applications can be controlled and hardware chosen for that particular purpose.

Not to mention the lack of real threats such as viruses and only a miniscule amount of remotely expoitable security flaws and of course the price.

Corporate world is still a part of the "desktop market" and a very substantial part of it.

But for the home user it's a double edged blade and a very large portion of the blame falls on hardware manufacturers for their unwillingness to support their hardware and software vendors for creating one platform only solutions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
seta-san

it is getting better. KDE. no matter what anyone tells you is the best UI for those coming from windows. It's got alot of programs including a office suite, media players, image viewers/editors,etc.. It's stable and works well. All the problems with linux from a windows users mind is that it's unstandardized and does have the issue of dependancy hell. Personally, if you plan on ONLY using what comes in your distro package it should work fine for you. Upgrading software and installing thing will be a pain in the ass though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AsciiSmoke

I too have been trying to get on board the Linux bandwagon for a very long time. I first started trying when Corel were still making a distro and version 2 was my first attempt.

I generally try it whenever I've suffered a crash or something else that prompts me to format down my main machine. Each time I convince myself that I dont need windows any more and that Linux has all I need now that Cedega is really flourishing. However each time I get to the point where I'm pulling my hair out, usually when trying to get a driver to install. My most recent attempts were with Suse 9.2, then very soon after 9.3. Everything looked like it was gonna be great, I even got the ATI driver to install, and got the UT2K4 demo running in OpenGL. But then completely randomly it all just stopped working and rather than uninstall and try again I defected back to windows.

My main needs for me to stay with Linux full-time are;

Driver updates that don't require me to enter text-mode.

A distro that doesn't get all upset if you always want to run as a system administrator.

More games with dual installers on the disc, so that we're not left relying on Cedega.

I use my PC mainly for games, and at the moment it wouldn't be logical to stop using windows. Let's hope, Linux finds some real gaming roots (pun intended) soon.

AsciiSmoke

Link to post
Share on other sites
joseph-

An example;

When changing the resolution and refresh rate of your LCD flatpanel is as easy in linux as it is on Windows, then Linux will be ready for the desktop market...or hell, I'd be happy with the GUI configuration not requiring manual editing of a text file 50% of the time.

And before the zealots chime in with their two cents; save it. I know what I'm doing in linux, and I've been using it since '96. This was a pain in the ass.

distro = Ubuntu "Warty"

vidcard = Radeon 9800

drivers = ATI supplied drivers

LCD = Dell 1704 FPV

Refresh rate was locking in at 75 hertz, which is not supported and causing warning messages to display on my monitor. Would not change, even after manually editing XF86Config. Had to set up XFree86 from scratch using the ati-derived config program from the command line, *then* go back and re-edit that config, so I could manually set the refresh rate. All said, 6 hours, just to change my refresh rate, including actually posting the question on the ubuntu forums, and wading through the normal horsesh*7 of "why don't you use this blah blah blah", "just don't use the driver" and other pointless suggestions. I'm sorry, but something as simple in Windows as installing a vender-supplied driver should not require 6+ hours of my time in Linux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CaKeY
even after manually editing XF86Config.  Had to set up XFree86 from scratch using the ati-derived config program from the command line, *then* go back and re-edit that config,

Theres your problem. Ubuntu comes with Xorg. You sure you know what you're doing? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
,Jun 15 2005, 10:24]Despite what some Linux zealots want to think no Linux distro its still ready to compare with Windows in its main market: The Desktop one.

Yes, Linspire exists. But its software and update managements its ridiculous.

586068654[/snapback]

Whoa... that sounds like trolling to me.............  :no:

Barney

586068690[/snapback]

Trolling would be to say "Use Windows".

[sanctified?] gave his beliefs why he feels Linux isn't ready for the common desktop.

While I agree that Linux isn't quite ready for the casual user - as it requires the user tolearn> how to properlyadminister> their computer. You don't really have to do as much work to set up in Windows. I could not imagine my parents calling me askign how to get their laptop's internal winmodem to work and dial-in to their ISP of choice. They are approaching 60 years old, and don't want to have to do an insmod - they just want to send email and get pics of their grandkids.

However, I happen to fundamentally and stronglydisagree> with the statement that software and update management in Linux is "ridiculous". It is FAR easier to keep a Linux (when compared to Windows) box up to date with kernel, OS, and all the packages being managed through something like apt-get/synaptic, yum, or any of the other package managers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
joseph-
Theres your problem.  Ubuntu comes with Xorg.  You sure you know what you're doing?  :rolleyes:

586068974[/snapback]

Actually, Hoary is the first version to come with Xorg. Notice I said "warty" as the distro? Way to *not* know what you're talking about. Kthnx. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
CaKeY

A thousand pardons. :sleep:

Link to post
Share on other sites
akaladis

I get the same feeling... I was running Fedora Core 3 for some weeks, with no dual boots whatsoever. Well, after the first shock (read as no mp3 support OOB), I pretty much got used to it. Even my sister was able to use it. But I never felt comfortable with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.